{
  "id": 11275822,
  "name": "THE STATE v. C. A. KENNERLY and GEORGE W. PATTERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kennerly",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "657",
  "last_page": "660",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 657"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4860,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7100384013259736e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7022677770016708
    },
    "sha256": "2edb3af67b3688752501fe3be406dc945492ce84b80f363820f8235c6e64b330",
    "simhash": "1:51bb9f76d4893234",
    "word_count": 848
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. C. A. KENNERLY and GEORGE W. PATTERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MereimoN, J.\nThe defendants are indicted for selling spirituous liquors \u201cin quantities of one quart and less than five gallons,\u201d without a license, the same not being \u201cthe products of his (their) own farm.\u201d\nThe statute (Acts 1887, Ch. 185, \u00a731,) provides among other things, as follows: \u201c Every person, company or firm, for selling spirituous, vinous or malt liquors or medicated bitters, shall pay a license tax semi-annually in advance, on the first day of January and July, as follows. * * * Second, for selling in qualities of one quart and less than five gallons, twenty-five dollars for each six months,\u201d &c. \u201cNothing in this section contained shall prevent any person selling wines of his own manufacture at the place of manufacture, or any person from selling spirits or wines, the products of his own farm, in quantities of not less than one quart.\u201d\nIt appears from the special verdict that the defendants sold to the person named in the indictment one quart of spirituous liquors, neither of them having a license to sell such liquors. It appears further, that the defendant Kennerly was in the employment of the other defendant as his clerk, and sold the spirits with the knowledge and consent of the former. It likewise further appears, that the spirits so sold \u2022were manufactured out of \u201cthe products of\u201d the farm of the :said Patterson \u201cand out of the said Patterson\u2019s toll from his mill, located on said last mentioned farm of said Patterson.\u201d\nThe spirits sold were of the tolls \u2014 the grain earned \u2014 of \u2022the mill, as -well as the products of the farm mentioned, and \u2022the defendants could not lawfully sell the same without a license, unless such toll should be treated as part of the products of the farm, as the counsel for the defendants contend it should be.\nThe words of the statute to be interpreted are \u201c the products of his own farm,\u201d Now, a farm, the farm, his farm, in the ordinary sense, implies the land cultivated \u2014 used in some way \u2014 for the purposes of production by the owner thereof, or some other person having a temporary estate or interest therein, and land, whether covered by forest or not, adjoining or near and made subservient thereto, and used in aid thereof, for the purposes of producing grain \u2014 such as wheat, indian corn, rye, barley, cotton, fruits, hay, vegetables, and the like, and perhaps live stock, such as cattle, sheep, horses, swine, and the like, by transmutation, directly or indirectly, brought about by the cultivation of the soil. Bur. Law Die. \u2014 Farm.\n\u201c The products\u201d of the farm are such things as are so produced by labor or otherwise, and of spontaneous growth, and \u201c the products of his own farm \u201d are such as are produced by him who so owns and cultivates a farm. A mill situate on a farm is not a product of it \u2014 it is not the result of the cultivation of the soil \u2014 it is not essential to it \u2014 it is a structure enclosing machinery for the purposes of manufacture, transformation, not transmutation, and its earnings \u2014 the tolls\u2014 are not products of the owner\u2019s farm, but the products of the farms of other people, and the clause in question clearly does not therefore embrace them. A grist mill is no more a part of the farm than a cotton mill, a cotton gin, a blacksmith-shop, or other structure or machinery erected on it for the purposes of manufacture. The earnings of such things are not of the product of the farm, in the sense of the statute.\n' The purpose of the statutory provision in question is not to encourage millers, but to afford every farmer the largest opportunity to sell the corn, wfheat, rye, and the like, produced on his own farm, by turning it into an article of ready sale at a better price. He may sell spirituous liquors manufactured out of \u201c the products of his own farm \u201d \u2014 the rye, wheat and indian corn produced by him, without paying a tax for license to do so; beyond that, he must pay a license tax. We cannot hesitate to hold that such is the meaning of the statute.\nThere is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MereimoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and Messrs. T. G. Fuller, Geo. H. Snow and E. 0. Smith, for the State.",
      "Messrs. G. M. Busbee and Jno. Devereux, Jr., for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. C. A. KENNERLY and GEORGE W. PATTERSON.\nLiquor Dealer \u2014 Tax\u2014Statute\u2014Products of Farm.\n1. The exception in the Revenue Act (Ch. 135, \u00a731, Laws 1887,) of the \u201cproducts of the farm,\u201d from special license tax on liquor dealers, includes only those products which are the result of the cultivation of the soil. Tolls received from a mill erected on the farm are not such \u201cproducts.\u201d\nCrimtNAL action, tried before Clark, Judge, at Pall Term,. 1887, of Cabarrus Superior Court.\nUpon the special verdict the Court, being of opinion that the defendants were guilty, pronounced judgment against, them, from which they appealed.\nThe facts ar.e stated in the opinion.\nThe Attorney General and Messrs. T. G. Fuller, Geo. H. Snow and E. 0. Smith, for the State.\nMessrs. G. M. Busbee and Jno. Devereux, Jr., for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0657-01",
  "first_page_order": 689,
  "last_page_order": 692
}